Law & Disorder —

Ars Technica: banned in Iran!

We're kind of a big deal... to the Iranian government. Ars Technica is now …

"403 Forbidden": that's what Ars readers in Iran are now seeing when they try to connect to arstechnica.com. We were alerted to the block by a loyal Iranian reader late last week, and we checked our traffic statistics over the weekend; we do, in fact, appear to be banned.

The block began following our second piece of coverage about the Stuxnet malware that allegedly targeted an Iranian power plant. That was published on September 27, the last day in which Iranian readers could access the site, as you can see from the second spike on the graph above. After that, traffic from Iran drops to zero. Our Iranian readers say that this is what they get now when they try to visit the site, which we are told is the standard response returned by the Iranian government's filter when users try to access a blocked site.

The point of the ban isn't clear, but it definitely highlights how easy it is for governments to start cracking down on whatever sites they like once they have the proper tools in place and have centralized all Internet links leaving/entering the country. And, as the traffic logs show, it can be surprisingly effective at discouraging casual users from viewing unwanted content.

What else has Iran blocked recently? We would ask our Iranian readers to let us know, but—sadly—they may have a hard time reading this post.

Jacqui Cheng
Jacqui is an Editor at Large at Ars Technica, where she has spent the last eight years writing about Apple culture, gadgets, social networking, privacy, and more. Emailjacqui@arstechnica.com//Twitter@eJacqui

You mean the US? The country that is actively trying to pass a law that would let them do this by shutting down domains whenever they want to?

I'm guessing you don't live here.

American politics are confusing when viewed from the outside. In the absence of broad consensus to act, politicians fall back to making broad, boisterous claims that have zero chance of becoming mandated law and then counting on the press reporting it as if passage was an definite eventuality, rather then a remote possibility. Just to score points with their electorate.

There is zero, and I mean, absolutely no possibility that the US government will ever try to censor sites by fiddling with the DNS, because it draws fire from both a money-lobby (the ISPs, as well as the usual list of telco and computer companies) and public interest lobbies (ie, the NRA, the EFF, the ACLU), AND from pretty much every internet technology expert out there.

With that many voices lined up against the proposal neither party will attempt to advance it beyond the usual "well, we'll keep this as a tool against child exploitation". Because any attempt to extend censorship is automatically shot down by the judiciary, which is consistently opposed to any expansion of censorship powers (if for no other reason that weakening the first amendment weakens the courts ability to punish abuses of it).

Wow...i am so sorry for the people in Iran. Events like this make me appreciate the country in am right now.

You mean the US? The country that is actively trying to pass a law that would let them do this by shutting down domains whenever they want to?

The devil is in the details. While this law potentially can be abused it all depends on how it is drafted, implemented and enforced. As long as such a law requires a warrant or some judicial over sight and any action can be contested, then we are probably okay. It is okay to be concerned about government, since we have to keep out elected officials in check, but at the same time not everything is black and white.

The issue with in cases of countries like Iran (and Australia?) is that what is shut down or blocked is not subject to judicial oversight and can not be contested. In many cases you don't even know anything happened and until you find yourself with a message prohibiting access or a big void where the site used to be.

One other thing worth mentioning is that not everyone in Iran wants the current power in place, especially the younger generation. The issue is between the people wanting to keep the power and people who don't want to accept that their revolution has brought in the wrong people. Mind you the USA and Britain kind of helped set up the conditions that made the revolution happen. Read up on the Shah and the revolution. Persiapolis is also a good read.

A very large portion of Iranian internet users are experts at using proxies. Remember all the twitter updates during the protests last year? Those were all done by people with proxy hopping software on their phones.

You mean the US? The country that is actively trying to pass a law that would let them do this by shutting down domains whenever they want to?

I'm guessing you don't live here.

American politics are confusing when viewed from the outside. In the absence of broad consensus to act, politicians fall back to making broad, boisterous claims that have zero chance of becoming mandated law and then counting on the press reporting it as if passage was an definite eventuality, rather then a remote possibility.

There is zero, and I mean, absolutely no possibility that the US government will ever try to censor sites by fiddling with the DNS, because it draws fire from both a money-lobby (the ISPs, as well as the usual list of telco and computer companies) and public interest lobbies (ie, the NRA, the EFF, the ACLU), AND from pretty much every internet technology expert out there.

With that many voices lined up against the proposal neither party will attempt to advance it beyond the usual "well, we'll keep this as a tool against child exploitation".

Good point, Pirokobo. Also for those outside the US, preventing child pornography is political code for "internet spying" and protecting children from seeing porn is code for "internet censorship". Thankfully our courts have largely agreed with my code word assessment and smacked down such laws.

Congratulations on getting banned. There is an inverse correlation between being good guys and being liked by Iran. Israel too, they're on the opposite side, but neither of them is much for human rights.

I think in the US if you tweet something wrong you get FBI storming our house in ~10minutes

Elliott Madison arrested by FBI and charged with using social networking site to help demonstrators evade Pittsburgh police...The criminals identified in the warrant are protesters against the G20. Their crime? They were demonstrating in the street without a permit.

I think in the difference here is in the us "they" are much more discrete and advanced in policing the web.Not banning sites rather watching the people who visit them.

Has Ars ever considered something running something like a Tor hidden service mirror of the site? They aren't hard to set up, and even if it only gets used a little it would be a geeky thing to do as a possible way to help some people evade censors.

This type of thing would never happen in the US because we do have something that is actually upheld more often that probably most US citizens would like, and that is the first amendment to our constitution. (aka free speech for anyone who may not be familiar).

So while I could see the US govt taking down a locally hosted pro jihad kill americans site, they aren't going to take down sites just because they may contain information like a virus infected some computers at a nuke plant. Or porn sites, or any sites except those that explicitly break the existing laws of the country (like snuff porn, warez, etc..)

Hell free speech is so strong in this country, there has been little success stopping these assholes so far

I think in the US if you tweet something wrong you get FBI storming our house in ~10minutes

Elliott Madison arrested by FBI and charged with using social networking site to help demonstrators evade Pittsburgh police...The criminals identified in the warrant are protesters against the G20. Their crime? They were demonstrating in the street without a permit.

I think in the difference here is in the us "they" are much more discrete and advanced in policing the web.Not banning sites rather watching the people who visit them.

If you tweet something illegal and *don't* expect to eventually be caught, I would have to wonder about your level of intelligence. Twitter is a public medium.

You can call 'em "demonstrators", but they were doing so without a permit, against the law, and were purposefully avoiding the police because *gasp* they *KNEW* it was illegal.

If you called it civil disobedience, that might fly a bit better...aside from the whole "trying to avoid getting caught" bit...

The difference is that ARS didn't break any laws, obstruct the police from enforcing the laws, or aid criminals.

The point of the ban isn't clear, but it definitely highlights how easy it is for governments to start cracking down on whatever sites they like once they have the proper tools in place and have centralized all Internet links leaving/entering the country. And, as the traffic logs show, it can be surprisingly effective at discouraging casual users from viewing unwanted content.

A better argument for opposing the nationalism of US broadband administration cannot be fictionalized.... So, possibly, we can stop creating straw-man arguments that romanticize the government as the savior of the Internet. That'd be nice. Many of the same people in the US who have abhorred the Patriot Act and its aftermath are, ironically, some of the first on board the "Let the government run the Internet!" train. That one really does deserve a "Go figure."

I do have an idea though - what about smuggling in satellite dishes + satellite broadband modems and covertly supplying the people with completely uncensored internet access? The government would be powerless to filter that.

I think the powers that be would notice a large number of 1.2m two-way satellite dishes popping up on rooftops. Plus, jamming something like that is trivial. Good idea though.

I do have an idea though - what about smuggling in satellite dishes + satellite broadband modems and covertly supplying the people with completely uncensored internet access? The government would be powerless to filter that.

I think the powers that be would notice a large number of 1.2m two-way satellite dishes popping up on rooftops. Plus, jamming something like that is trivial. Good idea though.

I do have an idea though - what about smuggling in satellite dishes + satellite broadband modems and covertly supplying the people with completely uncensored internet access? The government would be powerless to filter that.

I think the powers that be would notice a large number of 1.2m two-way satellite dishes popping up on rooftops. Plus, jamming something like that is trivial. Good idea though.

Or try proxies before buying a really big and expensive satellite dish that the authority will probably take as indication of some kind of spy / terrorist command center.

I would love to know why? Most people are saying that the attack came from the US or Israel. I figure Iran would love that getting out. I would love to know why.As to the rest of the political comments... bleck. I hate politics of all sorts you all suck.

The point of the ban isn't clear, but it definitely highlights how easy it is for governments to start cracking down on whatever sites they like once they have the proper tools in place and have centralized all Internet links leaving/entering the country. And, as the traffic logs show, it can be surprisingly effective at discouraging casual users from viewing unwanted content.

A better argument for opposing the nationalism of US broadband administration cannot be fictionalized.... So, possibly, we can stop creating straw-man arguments that romanticize the government as the savior of the Internet. That'd be nice.

Which "nationalism of the US broadband administration" thing are you talking about? Network neutrality? Federal subsidies to expand broadband penetration? Something I haven't heard about?

The devil is in the details. While this law potentially can be abused it all depends on how it is drafted, implemented and enforced.

I guess you haven't had an occasion to purvey the legalistic gobbledygook that routinely is signed into law by Congressmen--Congressmen, I might add, who on occasion freely admit they don't have time to (a) write the legislation themselves, leaving "details" like that to lawyers, lobbyists, and Congressional staff, or (b) read, let alone understand, the laws they routinely vote up or down. There's a quote out there actually made by a sitting Congressman to the effect that he was "shocked" at the suggestion that Congressmen should, in fact, be able to write the laws they pass, let alone "understand" them. This should supply insight to just how degraded things have actually become in Washington of late.

Quote:

As long as such a law requires a warrant or some judicial over sight and any action can be contested, then we are probably okay.

Look, if those who watch the watchers become inured in the same steaming pile of corruption, it isn't going to matter who is "supposed" to watch the watchers. I have difficulty with this very naive notion that even if Congress can be corrupted, it's impossible to corrupt the people who are tasked with overseeing Congress. Ditto warrants and judges--why the assumption that the judge who issues a warrant is any less corrupted than anyone else? If I was doing the corrupting, my very first targets would be those who watch the watchers...

Quote:

It is okay to be concerned about government, since we have to keep out elected officials in check, but at the same time not everything is black and white.

I think such concern is a little more than "OK" considering that America was founded on the deep skepticism of governments. That's why, whenever possible, the Constitution takes power away from the government and prefers to give it to the US electorate, instead. Such concerns can never be forgotten, and ought never to be downplayed. Based on the historical evidence we can see in the histories of most nations on Earth, such vigilance and concern is well-justified on an ongoing basis.

Quote:

The issue with in cases of countries like Iran (and Australia?) is that what is shut down or blocked is not subject to judicial oversight and can not be contested. In many cases you don't even know anything happened and until you find yourself with a message prohibiting access or a big void where the site used to be.

Oh, I daresay that if you asked for a list of oversight judges who approved the block then Iran would no doubt supply a long one--just to prove its righteousness in censoring the site. Totalitarian regimes always like to appear as "democratic" as possible. In the old USSR, for instance, "show trials," in which the defendant's guilt or innocence was decided beforehand, were quite common--and so were their "two candidate elections," wherein two candidates were announced running for a political office, but on the actual voting ballot there was only one name there...

Quote:

One other thing worth mentioning is that not everyone in Iran wants the current power in place, especially the younger generation. The issue is between the people wanting to keep the power and people who don't want to accept that their revolution has brought in the wrong people. Mind you the USA and Britain kind of helped set up the conditions that made the revolution happen. Read up on the Shah and the revolution. Persiapolis is also a good read.

Well, obviously, the "revolution" the US and Britain wanted is the same revolution that Iran's younger generation wanted--and never got. In totalitarian states the one constant factor that abounds to keep people in check is fear--and this is provided generously by the current Iranian government, so that if you reveal yourself as too much of a dissident, and refuse to be seen giving Iran's "The Little Dictator Who Thought He Could" the equivalent of a political blow job--then you just might wind up dead. This lesson, often demonstrated, is lost on few in Iran today. I have no doubt that many Iranians are indeed freedom lovers, but I also have no doubt that few of them are willing to die for that freedom--and that's really sort of the problem, isn't it? Getting the current regime of thugs and quacks out of power is simply not going to happen via the ballot box, unfortunately.

Nations often face difficult choices, and the way they choose often makes a dramatic difference in the fate of the peoples who live in those nations. It was no easy decision to go to war against King George, people would die, but that decision has shaped the course of America and all who have lived in her for over two hundred years. Likewise, just imagine how different the fate of Germany and all her people would have been--not to mention all of Europe and the US--had groups within and without Germany, who knew what Hitler was doing, made their protests rather more pointed than the verbal kind.

Well, just the people who think that when it comes to the Internet, the government's your friend and your buddy, while the companies that actually have rolled the Internet out to you are Satan Incarnate...

I assume someone else has already pointed it out in the 70 comments above me, but what's so unclear here?

Iran is a totalitarian regime, i.e. a regime that will do everything in its power to *retain* full power and control over the population, the economy and pretty much everything else in their geographical territory.

News about a nuclear power plant having been invaded by spyware from the evil west could imply that (a) those evil western enemies are actually smarter than their iranian counterparts, (b) that the government is incompetent at controlling extremely crucial infrastructure of the country and (c) that there might be an imminent nuclear disaster in Iran.

None of those implications will sit very well with the aforementioned totalitarian regime...... =/

Iran is and always has been a backward country even tho they have given the world a lot of good things through out the centuries.

*Ahem* They're only backward NOW because the U.S. and the British thought installing a despot was a better bet than a democratic republic, cutting off any nascent progressives at the knees and and radicalizing the frothing nationalists and religious extremists in the same stroke. Just sayin'.

Certainly, the West doesn't make it easy for Iran to develop, but the West doesn't make it easy for China either, yet the Chinese have one of the fastest growing economies in the world, and the fastest one among the big ones. So it is not only the West's fault. Unlike Iran, China has figured out what works: free market in non-strategical fields (commodities, commerce), and state-sponsored corporatism in strategical fields (technology, finance, military). It is what the Americans and the British (and the Germans, and the French, and the Russians, and pretty much every Western power) has figured out long ago. But they don't want anyone else to figure it out, unless they are "strategical partners" (a.k.a., need them to counter a common enemy, like West Germany and Japan after World War II).

Iran is and always has been a backward country even tho they have given the world a lot of good things through out the centuries.

*Ahem* They're only backward NOW because the U.S. and the British thought installing a despot was a better bet than a democratic republic, cutting off any nascent progressives at the knees and and radicalizing the frothing nationalists and religious extremists in the same stroke. Just sayin'.

The Shah was overthrown almost 40 years ago. How much longer are they going to keep milking that excuse? Japan and Germany were pretty much bombed flat in the 40s, 20 years later they were major economic powers. Just sayin'.